Variation of perfusion index to evaluate fluid responsiveness during the preload challenge tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors

Haijun Huang, Linqing Liu, Tongfei Feng, Qinkang Shen, Hua Xu, Jiannong Wu

Published in

Annals of intensive care. Volume 16. Pages 100136. Epub Aug 21, 2026.

Abstract

The ability of perfusion index (PI) for predicting fluid responsiveness has been extensively studied with conflicting results. This meta-analysis evaluated the value of variation of PI (ΔPI) for predicting fluid responsiveness in adult patients undergoing preload challenge tests.
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched up to 20th July 2026. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated. Q test and I² statistics were used for study heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed by Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. Subgroup analysis was performed for the potential causes of heterogeneity arising from varied patient characteristics.
Overall, nine studies including 492 preload challenge tests were administered to 419 patients in this review, of whom 52% were fluid responsive. The cutoff values of ΔPI were increased between 1.024% and 33% or decreased between -7% and -40%. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.85) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75-0.87), respectively. DOR was 17 (95% CI: 10-30) and AUROC was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90), indicating good diagnostic accuracy. Heterogeneity was low (I ² = 28.95%, P = 0.124). Subgroup analysis showed that ΔPI performed consistently across ICU and operating room settings, regardless of preload challenge type, PI device, or ventilation status.
Our meta-analysis suggests that ΔPI may serve as a promising adjunct non-invasive marker for predicting fluid responsiveness during preload challenge tests, but the current evidence base remains limited, heterogeneous, and at risk of bias.

PMID:
42701428
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 06 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.